He planned the murder of the mother of his kids, I'm pretty sure he can plan well in advance for a parole hearing. I wouldn't put anything past the likes of Hans Reiser or Peter Madsen.
"According to a later confession by Hans Reiser to authorities, on September 3, 2006, Nina Reiser dropped their two children off with Hans Reiser at his mother's house, where he was living at the time. The pair got into a heated argument over Nina Reiser taking the children to the doctor, with Nina referencing that she had custody over the children, and so was free to do as she wished. Defense lawyer William DuBois later said that Hans Reiser alleged that Nina Reiser was fabricating illnesses in the children. Hans Reiser hit her in the face and strangled her to death."
Was there something I missed? I just reread his wikipedia page, and it seems to confirm the crime-of-passion narrative that I remember from 15 years ago. That said, I would not disagree with your character evaluation.
A crime of passion does not normally include studying up on body removal, ways to hide further evidence and not owning up to the crime for years because you - wrongly - believe that you can't be convicted if the body can't be found. This was premeditated murder, not a crime of passion.
I'm not going to split legal hairs here, merely point out that 'sudden strong impulse' (a requirement for 'crime passionel') is incompatible with subsequent testimony by Reiser claiming that he had 'killed their mother to protect his children'.
That's one of the problems with all of the Reiser defenders: they are usually unaware to what degree Reiser has incriminated himself.
I take offense at being called a "Reiser defender". I think we can all agree that he's a creep, a manipulator, and a murderer. I don't hear anyone defending him.
The guy strangled his wife. I don't think that's the kind of thing you premeditate. He's also a liar; I wouldn't read too much into his attempt to manipulate his later civil jury. The crime-of-passion narrative would still find for the plaintiff, so he made up some nonsense that the jury saw right through.
Those things happened after the murder, and don't necessarily preclude a crime of passion. When someone does commit a crime of passion, they don't always just come out and confess as soon as they're clear headed again.
That he claims that he killed her to protect his children. You don't make up a reason like that on the spur of the moment while involved in a crime of passion.
"His defense essentially was that he killed his wife to protect his children from her."
That he made up different stories at different times is besides the point, the point is: you can't believe a word he says either way so any defense of a crime of passion is just as baseless as this one, though this one is actually much more believable and fits the evidence available. All of it points to a very smart guy who killed his wife because he thought he could get away with it but failed at that (and not for lack of trying) and who now thinks he can present himself as 'a changed man' when really he isn't.
